bullitnut
4 awesome repairs with SMG
The state consumer commission on Thursday dismissed an appeal from a women who sought compensation from a cosmetic surgeon after an expensive hair transplant went awry and had to be removed almost three years later in 2005. The commission said the surgeon could not be held responsible for negligence only because the transplant was unsuccessful. "There is no sufficient and cogent evidence to hold that the surgeon was negligent while rendering services. The surgeon believed that due to illness, she (patient) had to take anti-malarial treatment. This is believed to have caused the skin of the complainant to have problems, making it impossible for the the hair implant to continue. Referring to the patient's main reason for undergoing the transplant, the commission observed, "The complainant was a young lady who was hoping for settlement of marriage, but her baldness was the main hurdle. The only inference is that to overcome this difficulty, she preferred to go for the implantation and to continue with the procedure despite a reaction in the first test," the commission said. The commission accepted the surgeon's contention that she wore a wig during treatment despite strict instructions not to do so.The woman had filed the appeal before the commission in 2011, after a district forum rejected her complaint. She said that by the age of 14 she became bald due to a medical condition (Alopecia Universalis) and was compelled to wear a wig. She said she had opted for the transplant after reading an article about the procedure. After examining her, the surgeon informed her that the hair and medicines would be imported from Italy and she would need 10,000 bio-fibers at a cost of Rs 5 lakh. She claimed she raised the money with great difficulty and after conducting two patch tests, the first to which she had an adverse reaction, the final transplant commenced from May 20, 2005 with 500 strands implanted per week.The commission said she should not have consented to further treatment.
